The below, by the undersigned (Nordwall)
commented article by Hansson can be found at a number of sites at internet,
in Swedish, English and German. It is written by one of the main founders
in 1982 of the Swedish section of CSICOP,
who also has written several works on what he considers to be pseudoscience.The text parts that belong to the
original article are depicted in black.
In addition, I have marked the original text parts of Hansson's article
with an added 'HANSSON:'.
The text partsthat cannot be found in the original article and
constitute comments by the undersigned have been marked with red.

HANSSON:

Abstract

Anthroposophy is one of the most successful occult movements
in Europe. In this paper, its claim to be a science is examined. Two criteria
are used that have both been accepted by the founder of anthroposophy,
Rudolf Steiner: (1) intersubjectivity, and (2) confirmation by empirical
science. Neither of these criteria is satisfied. The claims that anthroposophy
is a science are not justified.

Summary of comment

The paper "Is Anthroposophy Science"
by a Sven-Ove Hansson, published in 1991, is analysed.The analysis shows that Hansson's
way of using quotes from different works by Rudolf Steiner seriously misrepresent
anthroposophy as developed separate from theosophy, and distorts the argumentation
in the context from which quotes from works by Steiner are taken.It also shows that the discussion
of the three examples used by Hansson to argue against the reliability
of alleged predictions by Steiner partly is based on careless mistranslation,
non-consideration of the social, conceptual and historical context from
which the examples are taken and superficial to the extent of bordering
on pure rhetoric.Both factors deprive the discussion
in a large part of the article by Hansson of its possible scientific value
regarding the subject it purports to be a discussion of.

HANSSON:Anthroposophy, originally an outgrowth of theosophy,
is one of the most successful occult movements in Northern and Central
Europe. New adherents are attracted by its Waldorf schools, its herb medicines
and its pesticide-free agriculture. However, anthroposophy is more than
a collection of social movements. Its adherents claim that it is a science.
The strength and influence of the anthroposophical movement is reason enough
to examine the claim that anthroposophy is a science. Another reason is
that precise and authoritative statements of its epistemology are available,
so that anthroposophy is more accessible to philosophical analysis than
are most other movements with related aims and methods.

1. The anthroposophical road to knowledge

Anthroposophy is a doctrine about hidden, spiritual realities.
It is almost entirely based on the teachings of its founder, Rudolf Steiner
(1861-1925). Steiner's pronouncements are in practice never questioned
in the anthroposophical movement, and very little of substance has been
added to the doctrine after his death. It is in his writings that the (esoteric)
epistemology of anthroposophy can be found. [1]

Steiner emphasized that he was doing "science" [Wissenschaft].
He interchangeably called his undertaking "occult science" [Geheimwissenschaft],
"Divine Science" [göttliche Wissenschaft] and - most commonly - "spiritual
science" [Geisteswissenschaft]. [2] Spiritual
science "would speak of the non-sensible in the same spirit in which Natural
Science speaks of the sensible". [3]
It works by developing in the individual an ability to see directly into
spiritual reality ("clairvoyance" [Hellsehen]). The process of acquiring
this ability is called "initiation" [Einweihung]. [4]
Steiner has provided fairly detailed guidelines for the first stages of
the initiation process. Some individuals have, according to Steiner, a
personality that facilitates the development of clairvoyance.

"There are children who look up with reverent
awe [heilige Scheu] to certain venerated persons. Their reverence for these
people forbids them, even in the deepest depths of their hearts, to admit
any thought of criticism or opposition ... Many occult pupils [Geheimschüler]
come from the ranks of such children." [5]

COMMENT:The quote [5] makes it stand out
as if Steiner thought it was important for students of spiritual science
to be reverent to persons; implicitly himself in the case of anthroposophy,
which is one of the main arguments of the article. That is not correct.
What Steiner points to in the context quoted is something quite else, that
Hansson leaves out.

The context, from which Hansson
takes his 'quote', is the first
chapter of Knowledge
of the Higher Worlds. The chapter discusses the 'Conditions' for starting
to understand more deeper layers of reality. The full textual context,
out of which the quote is peeled out is:

Steiner (not quoted
by Hansson):"Only within his own soul can a
man find the means to unseal the lips of an initiate. He must develop within
himself certain faculties to a definite degree, and then the highest treasures
of the spirit can become his own.

He must begin with a certain fundamental
attitude of soul. In spiritual science this fundamental attitude is called
the path of veneration, of devotion to truth and knowledge. Without this
attitude no one can become a student. The disposition shown in their childhood
by subsequent students of higher knowledge is well known to the experienced
in these matters."

(Hanssons's quote starting:)"There are children who look up
with religious awe to those whom they venerate. For such people they have
a respect which forbids them, even in the deepest recess of their heart,
to harbor any thought of criticism or opposition. (Left out by Hansson:
Such children grow up into young men and women who feel happy when they
are able to look up to anything that fills them with veneration.) From
the ranks of such children are recruited many students of higher knowledge.
(End Hansson's quote)

Have you ever paused outside the
door of some venerated person, and have you, on this your first visit,
felt a religious awe as you pressed on the handle to enter the room which
for you is a holy place? If so, a feeling has been manifested within you
which may be the germ of your future adherence to the path of knowledge.
It is a blessing for every human being in process of development to have
such feelings upon which to build.

Only it must not be thought that
this disposition leads to submissiveness and slavery. What was once a childlike
veneration for persons becomes, later, a veneration for truth and knowledge.
Experience teaches that they can best hold their heads erect who have learnt
to venerate where veneration is due; and veneration is always fitting
when it flows from the depths of the heart." (End of quote of Steiner.
Bold by this commentator S.N.)

As can be seen from the context, what
Steiner describes is how a sense of veneration in childhood, which
in
childhood naturally is directed at concrete people, but also
may be nature,
later, in adult life is the best basis for
in adult years developing the veneration for truth and knowledge
that is one of the basic conditions for investigating and exploring reality
in a deeper sense.

HANSSON:If a disciple has not been born with this attitude, it
is necessary that he "undertakes by rigorous self-education to engender
within himself this attitude of devotion". The reason for this is that
"every criticism, every adverse judgement passed, dispels the powers of
the soul for the attainment of higher knowledge, just as reverent veneration
develops these powers". [6]

COMMENT:As can be seen from the context
described above, the reverence necessary for a deepened and developed understanding
of reality concerns reality in general and especially truth and knowledge,
not single persons.

It is based on the simple experience,
that nature, as little as people, not reveals its deeper secrets and nature
to you in more than an external way, if you immediately start by intellectually
analysing, criticizing and speculating about the way it appears to you.

What comes to expression in Steiner's
argumentation is the view that only through a balanced and many-sided relation
to nature and reality in a broad sense, just as with people, will it reveal
its deeper nature to you.

Anthroposophy argues that this,
beyond an external observing, thinking, analytical and experimental relation
to it, also necessitates that you develop a sensitive artistic and practical
relation to it, including deepening this relation through a conscious disciplining
of your relation to your experiences through an inner meditative digestion
of them, and based on and developing a devotion to life and a love for
nature and other people.

Against this strife, Hansson argues
rhetorically because such a path of knowledge pointed to by anthroposophy
to develop a balanced human relation to and understanding of reality in
a
deeper sense is not primarily, only in a secondary sense experimental
and intellectually analytical.

HANSSON:When the disciple has got rid of his critical attitudes,
the next step is to perform daily meditations. One of the meditations described
by Steiner is to look at a seed and try to see, with an inner eye, how
it grows into a plant. Gradually, this will lead to an ability to see the
potential plant within the seed. [7]

COMMENT:That is not a correct description
of the way anthroposophy outlines the way to proceed from the cultivation
of specific soul attitudes and qualities, like veneration towards reality
in general, and especially towards truth and knowledge, to developing an
actual 'inner' capacity of observing what is experienced as a spiritual
world, neither as a whole, nor as it described in the book quoted.

"... Whoever, therefore,
wishes to become a student of higher knowledge must assiduously cultivate
this inner life of devotion. Everywhere in his environment and his experiences
he must seek motives of admiration and homage. If I meet a man and blame
him for his shortcomings, I rob myself of power to attain higher knowledge;
but if I try to enter lovingly into his merits, I gather such power."

What is necessary to understand the
world and man in a deeper sense is to develop a humility, veneration and
love for the world we live in. What the chapter describes in a sensitive
way is this necessity as the basic precondition for developing a "higher
[deeper] knowledge" of it.

"If we do not develop within
ourselves this deeply rooted feeling that there is something higher than
ourselves, we shall never find the strength to evolve to something higher.
The initiate has only acquired the strength to lift his head to the heights
of knowledge by guiding his heart to the depths of veneration and devotion.
The heights of the spirit can only be climbed by passing through the portals
of humility ...

"Our civilization tends more toward
critical judgement and condemnation than toward devotion and selfless veneration.
Our children already criticize far more than they worship. But every criticism,
every adverse judgement passed, disperses the powers of the soul for the
attainment of higher knowledge in the same measure that all veneration
and reverence develops them. In this we do not wish to say anything against
our civilization. There is no question here of leveling criticism against
it. To this critical faculty, this self-conscious human judgement, this
“test all things and hold fast what is best,” we owe the greatness of our
civilization.

"Man could never have attained to
the science, the industry, the commerce, the right relationships of our
time, had he not applied to all things the standard of his critical judgement.
But what we have thereby gained in external culture we have had to pay
for with a corresponding loss of higher knowledge of spiritual life. It
must be emphasized that higher knowledge is not concerned with the veneration
of persons but the veneration of truth and knowledge."

Also, while quote [6]
is taken from the beginning of the book [p. 24, see notes below], the directly
following statement quoted by Hansson [7]
refers to a much later part of the book [p. 63 ff, see notes below], with
Hansson skipping the description of the very long way between the first
cultivation of some basic soul qualities through a number of stages, over
developing inner calm and cultivating attention in a number of directions,
only then doing more specific observational exercises, related to the mineral
world, the plant world, the world of animals and the world of man.

Anthroposophy describes how it first
is necessary to systematically develop a mastery of one's own thinking,
will and feelings, and how to equally repeatedly and systematically develop
an openness and positivity to the world.

Only then is it possible
to conduct systematic exercises leading also in time to clairvoyance in
a first step as a transformation of thinking, spiritual "hearing" in a
second step, and spiritual "tasting" in a third step.

A closer look at the basic steps
in the anthroposophical road to knowledge as depicted in "Knowledge of
Higher Worlds" shows that Hansson's description of it seriously misrepresents
and distorts it, depriving his description of its value in any more than
a superficial rhetorical sense.

HANSSONFor the clairvoyant ability to develop, the disciple
must continuously restrain any inner tendency to analyse or criticize.
"By such intellectualising [Verstandesarbeit] he merely diverts himself
from the right path. He should look out on the world with fresh, healthy
senses and a keen power of observation, and give himself up to his feelings."
[8]

COMMENT:This is distorted way of representing
the description found in the chapter in question. What is described is
(Knowledge of Higher Worlds; second chapter: The Stages of Initiation,
Part: Preparation):

"First look at the things
as keenly and as intently as you possibly can; then only let the
feeling which expands to life, andthe thought which
arises in the soul, take possession of you." (Italic and bold
by this commentator. S.N.)

It shows that what the original argues
against is
too much and early intellectualizing speculation
about the experience, not thinking about it as such:

"It should be emphasized
that the student must never lose himself in speculations on the meaning
of one thing or another. Such intellectualizing will only draw him away
from the right road. He should look out on the world with keen, healthy
senses and quickened power of observation, and then give himself up to
the feeling that arises within him. He should not try to make out, through
intellectual speculation, the meaning of things, but rather allow the things
to disclose themselves.

"It should be remarked that artistic
feeling, when coupled with a quiet introspective nature, forms the best
preliminary condition for the development of spiritual faculties. This
feeling pierces through the superficial aspect of things, and in so doing
touches their secrets."

HANSSON:Or, in other words:

"We must say to ourselves: our thinking ceases,
and our head becomes the scene of the influence [Wirken] of the higher
hierarchies." [9]

When he has acquired knowledge in this way, the clairvoyant
"will in doing so have experienced the proof, and nothing more can be achieved
by any added proof from outside". [10]

COMMENT:As already pointed out above, this
is an extremely shortcut and distorted description of what developing spiritual
investigation of reality is about, also as it is described by Steiner.
The full text ot the main work discussed by Hansson; "Knowledge of Higher
Worlds And its Attainment" can be found
here
on the net.

[9]
is taken from another context, not found online in English on the internet
while [10] is taken from yet another
[third] context, found online.

What [9] is an expression of, is
the view of the philosophical tradition of objective
idealism and conceptual realism (more),
that thoughts basically are objective realities (Platonic
perspective, Aristotelean
perspective) and that is is possible to develop such a relation to
the objective world of thoughts that they think themselves objectively
in us. The view of Steiner was that these objective world thoughts were
an expression of the activities of high 'spiritual beings', by some described
as a hierarchy of beings and by the philosopher Hegel
called "The world spirit".

That 'world thoughts' 'think themselves'
in man is something that also takes place, not only in philosophical reasoning,
but also in pure mathematics. It is not a description of something that
primarily is or has the character of 'religious revelation', but of a thinking
that has been developed to achieving such a degree of objectivity in relation
to the world, that what comes to expression as the world we experience
as an external world outside ourselves also can 'think itself' as 'world
thoughts' in our own thinking.

[10] is taken from the first
chapter of 'Occult
Science - an outline' describing "The character of the science of the
occult" (with the word 'occult' not being in principle 'hidden', but in
the sense of 'not immediately obvious').

Someone following only the extremely
short and distorted way described by Hansson, if trying to develop thinking
in such a way that it becomes objective in the deeper sense of being in
accordance with the world that we experience, would probably not develop
an objective understanding of reality in the way Steiner refers to as a
proof in itself of being objective.

HANSSON:The successful clairvoyant will experience dramatic mental
changes. Previously, his consciousness was "continually interrupted by
the periods of sleep". [11] Not so
any longer. "His dreams, hitherto confused and haphazard, now begin to
assume a more regular character. Their pictures begin to arrange themselves
in an orderly way, like the thoughts and ideas of daily life." [12]

The clairvoyant will gain access to knowledge that is
unavailable to the uninitiated. As one example, he will transcend the limits
of historical science, and sense "past events in their eternal character".
[13] In particular, he will be able
to read the so-called Akasha
chronicle. This is not a chronicle in the ordinary sense of a historical
text. Instead, it consists in the supersensual traces of past events.

"Those who are initiated into the reading of
such a living script, will be able to look back into a much more distant
past than what is related by external history [åussere Geschichte];
and they are also able - through immediate spiritual perception [unmittelbare
geistige Wahrnehmung] - to give a much more reliable account of the subject-matter
of this history than what it is itself capable of." [14]

Steiner was a frequent reader of the Akasha chronicle. Significant
portions of his voluminous writings consist of exhaustive accounts of historical
events. He provided details about Atlantis and other lost civilizations.
He corrected the Gospels, revealed the secrets of ancient Egyptian priests,
etc. All this he had learnt from the Akasha chronicle.

Steiner also taught many other branches of knowledge,
such as agriculture, medicine and education. His source of knowledge
was always the same: His own clairvoyant visions. (bold/italic
by this commentator)

COMMENT:What Hansson writes is quite untrue
as stated. What Steiner described and developed as anthroposophy, and as
comments and suggestions in different fields, like agriculture, medicine
and education, in addition to his own observations and experiences, was
also based on extensive reading on the different subjects to such a degree,
that some even dispute that he ever expressed something on spiritual issues
that not can be found in writing somewhere. There exists (or at least has
existed) one site in German on the internet trying to argue for this view,
completely opposite to the view of Hansson.

HANSSON:Among the more obvious criticisms that can be made against
Steiner's road to knowledge are (1) that it does not satisfy intersubjectivity,
and (2) that its results contradict conventional science. Steiner was well
aware of these arguments. Indeed, he emphatically claimed that his method
satisfies intersubjectivity and that its results will be confirmed by conventional
science. This makes it possible to evaluate his road to knowledge by two
criteria accepted both by himself and by practitioners of conventional
science. Let us first turn to intersubjectivity.

2. Intersubjectivity

According to Steiner, true clairvoyants are sure to reach
the same result. "Just as a round table will be seen as round by two persons
with normal sight and not as round by one and square by another, so at
the sight of the blossom, the same spiritual figure will present itself
to two souls." [15] Indeed, this intersubjectivity
was greater than that of empirical science:

"And what different initiates can report on history
and prehistory will be essentially in agreement [im wesentlichen
in Übereinstimmung]. Indeed all occult schools have such a history
and prehistory. And we have here, since thousands of years, such complete
agreement [volle Übereinstimmung] that the agreement to be found between
the external historians of a single century cannot be compared to it. In
all times and all places the initiates relate essentially the same."
[16]

This standpoint may be somewhat surprising, considering the
wide variety of occult teachings that are competing for our souls. And
of course, Steiner could not deny that contradictory doctrines are being
promoted as true, occult knowledge. But this was only because some practitioners
of clairvoyance made mistakes. True occult knowledge was the same
for everyone that was able to attain it. "Divergencies exist only so long
as men try to approach the highest truths by arbitrary ways, instead of
by a pathway that is scientifically sure." [17]

In order to establish that anthroposophical knowledge
is intersubjective it is not sufficient merely to declare that some visions
are true and some are mistaken. In addition, a method is required for deciding
whether a particular vision is true or not. If such a method can be specified,
and if it yields the same result for everyone who uses it, then intersubjectivity
has been secured.

Steiner did in fact provide such a method. To avoid making
mistakes, and to ensure that his visions were true, the prospective clairvoyant
should take advice from a teacher. "You let a teacher transmit to you what
has been achieved for humanity by inspired forerunners [inspirierte Vorgänger]".
[18] In a very clarifying passage he
said:

"One who, without first turning his attention
to some of the essential facts of the supersensible world, merely does
'exercises' with the idea of gaining entrance there, will find in it a
vague and confusing chaos. Man finds his way into that world - to begin
with, as it were, naively - by learning to understand its essential features.
Then he can gain a clear idea of how - leaving his 'naive' stage behind
him - he will himself attain, in full consciousness, to the experiences
which have been related to him." [19]

SOME COMMENTS:1. This argument does not distinguish
between observations of the spiritual phenomena and observations of natural
phenomena formerly completely unknown to the observer, using the normal
sense organs of the human being. In both cases the experience will stand
out as chaotic and in need of guidance by those having done similar observations
before for you to understand it.

In relation to the natural world
that we are born into, the basic guidance takes place during childhood,
later followed by elementary school, high school, college and university.
Without this guidance, especially during the first time of childhood, man
would be more or less handicapped in life. In relation to the phenomena
of the soul and the more purely spiritual world, man, without a similar
guidance, would be similarly handicapped.

First learning from others
to understand the reality we are born into and experience as children is
the deeper basis and context for everything that we later in life
naively think of and call "intersubjectivity". That Hansson does not seem
to realize this when arguing about intersubjectivity may stand out as surprising.
It also stands out as surprising that the editor or editors of of the allegedly
philosophical journal in which the article was published in 1991 accepted
this type of argumentation.

In a later edited publication of
the article (2003), Hansson however seems to have realized the superficiality
of his argumentation on this points, and comments on it by adding a comment
similar to that of this commentator.

2. It was also Steiner's expressed
view that it would be completely possible for people to develop what he
summarized as 'anthroposophy', completely independently of having been
aware of 'anthroposophy' as developed by Steiner before. He only thought
that would take longer time, having to do it without guidance.

3. In the article on science at
http://www.thebee.se/SCIENCE/Science.htm
I have tried to map out some of the basic roots of anthroposophy in the
philosophical tradition in relation to basic ontology, showing how the
four/five basic ontological traditions ('atoms', 'elements', 'numbers'
and 'concepts' as the ultimate reality) relate to the sense organism of
man. The article is an academic study, done for Prof Håkan Thörnebom
at the Institution for the Philosophy of Science at the University of Gothenburg
in 1980.)

The article shows that anthroposophy
is rooted in the idealistic tradition in philosophy, with Plato and Aristotle
as two of its most outstanding representatives, in a similar way that what
today is called natural science is rooted in a materialistic tradition
in philosophy, leading back through history to among other Democritus and
Pythagoras in antiquity, as two central representatives of its basic pillars;
that of a physicalistic world view and mathematics as the central method
of describing it.

As for a number of the phenomena
that Steiner summarized the experience of, by using concepts like 'ether
body', astral body' and ego-organization', the concepts in question are
possible to understand in relation to the Aristotelean(-Platonic) tradition,
out of which the idealistic tradition in philosophy, and anthroposophy,
have developed.

In the Aristotelean tradition, the
concepts 'vegetative soul', 'animal soul', and 'rational soul' are used
to describe the basic nature of life processes, soul processes and rational
thinking in man.

In anthroposophy, these concepts
are developed further, described with terms connecting to the historical
context during the end of the 19th century, and based not only on thinking
about, but spiritually observing the deeper nature of that, for which Aristotle
2.100 years earlier had used the concepts 'vegetative soul', 'animal soul'
and 'rational soul'.

This effort to connect to the historical
context and spiritual tradition during the end of the 19th century made
anthroposophy use the partly more developed concept of 'etheric body' for
what Aristotle had called 'vegetative soul', and 'astral body' ('body of
star forces') for what Aristotle had called 'animal soul'.

The concept 'ego-organization' much
constitutes a developed description of that for which Aristotle used the
concept 'rational soul'.

That it is necessary to go all the
way back to the birth of Western civilization in Greek antiquity to understand
in some depth the origin and nature of anthroposophy in relation to what
today is called natural science, points to one of the reasons for the difficulty
to understand it out of present day 20th and 21st century cultural context,
dominated by a natural scientific tradition of the last centuries as the
mirror to the idealistic tradition, represented by anthroposophy.

It also makes the problem and cultural
conflict understandable, that develops and faces you, when trying to understand
anthroposophy out of a 20th or 21th century perspective, without understanding
the deeper historical and broader philosophical origin of the problem and
conflict.

HANSSON:
In other words, the practitioner of anthroposophical
science must compare his visions to those reported by his teacher and by
other "inspired forerunners". His own visions are true only if they tally
with these precedents. Such comparisons are, indeed, a necessary
part of the anthroposophical road to knowledge. Steiner said that "the
safe guidance by the experienced occult teacher [Geheimlehrer] cannot be
completely replaced". [20]

COMMENT:Quote 20 by Hansson
is taken from one of 4 articles written in 1905 as a sequel to the articles
from 1904, later put together as "Knowledge of higher Worlds, how is it
attained?". It was a time when Steiner for a period was working within
the theosophical tradition, that was strongly connected with the oriental
tradition, that puts great stress on the personal relation to a spiritual
teacher when developing meditation.

In ever more developing anthroposophy
separate from the theosophical tradition from 1909-10, he in the foreword
to a later (5th-7th) edition of "Knowledge of Higher Worlds ..." in 1914,
some 10 years after the first edition writes, updating the foreword to
the work, writes, contradicting Hansson's description, based on the 1918
edition of the work:

"In connection with a great
deal not described in this book I had to explain at that time [1904,
this commentator] that it could be learned by oral communication. Much
of what this referred to has since been published. But these allusions
perhaps did not wholly exclude the possibility of erroneous ideas in the
reader's mind. It might be possible, for instance, to imagine that something
much more vital in the personal relations between the seeker for spiritual
schooling and this or that teacher than is intended.

I trust I have here succeeded, by
presenting details in a certain way, in emphasizing more strongly that
for one seeking spiritual schooling in accord with present spiritual conditions
an absolutely direct relation to the objective spiritual world is of far
greater importance than a relation to the personality of a teacher. The
latter will gradually become merely the helper; he will assume the same
position in spiritual schooling as a teacher occupies, in conformity with
modern views, in any other field of knowledge.

I believe I have sufficiently stressed
the fact that the teacher's authority and the pupil's faith in him should
play no greater part in spiritual schooling than in and other branch of
knowledge or life. A great deal depends, its seems to me, upon an increasingly
true estimate of this relation between the one who carries on spiritual
research and those who develop an interest in the results of his research."

In 1991 in a seemingly philosophical
journal publishing a broad rhetorical criticism of "The anthroposophical
road to knowledge" and anthroposophy as developed by Steiner, one might
have expected Hansson, when discussing and arguing about such a central
problem as intersubjectivity in research, to have done some more thorough
investigation of Steiner's view of it, and noted his own erroneous description
of Steiner's view on the relation between student and teacher in spiritual
research, when developing anthroposophy separate from theosophy.

It points to a degree of superficiality
in the literature research, upon which Hansson bases his article, not normally
expected from allegedly scientific papers in philosophical journals.

HANSSON:In an important sense, this criterion establishes intersubjectivity.
Let us suppose that every disciple of the anthroposophical road to knowledge
judges the authenticity of his visions according to how they conform with
those of a forerunner. Let us furthermore suppose that they all use the
same
forerunner. Then their method is undeniably intersubjective.

However, this particular form of intersubjectivity gives
rise to at least two further epistemological problems:

(1) Since there are different occult forerunners
with different teachings, how do we (intersubjectively) find out which
are the genuine ones?

(2) If the guidance of a teacher is necessary, where did
the first occult teacher get his knowledge from?

Steiner does not seem to have tried to solve any of these
two problems. In the absence of satisfactory solutions, Steiner's intersubjectivity
consists in the subjection to an authority whose superior access to knowledge
is merely stipulated. This is intersubjectivity, but an authoritarian form
of intersubjectivity.

COMMENT:Again, one may be surprised at
the rhetoric superficiality of Hansson's argumentation regarding intersubjectivity
in the paper, even probably with his support republished in an allegedly
scientific anthology in 2003, after Hansson
has become Professor at the Philosophy
Unit of the Royal Institute of Technology
in Sweden.

It is not true that 'Steiner's intersubjectivity
consists in the subjection to an authority whose superior access to knowledge
is merely 'stipulated'. That noone after Steiner has ever demonstrably
reached the heights of Rudolf Steiner since his death does not make his
writings and lectures into an infallible doctrine. (There also exist different
later representatives of anthroposophy, who have developed some of the
abilities, developed and used by Steiner. They however seldom publish their
experiences, as Steiner did.)

Instead it was Steiner's own expressed
understanding and view, repeatedly pointing it out in lectures he held,
that his observations and descriptions of the spiritual world not in his
view were infallible and expressing his wish for people to think for themselves
and correct him if they could point to well founded reasons for doing it.

That for example took place in relation
to his discussion of coloured shadows during his 'First Science Course'
to teachers at the first Waldorf School in Stuttgart around 1920, where
a following discussion and demonstration showed that Steiner was incorrect
in his in one of the lectures expressed view that coloured shadows had
an objective reality in a way, that not was demonstrable on the basis of
normal visual observation.

That coloured shadows were objective
in the sense described by Steiner in the lecture was however also the view
of one of the great physicist of the 19th century, who discussed the phenomenon,
and may be one of the sources of Steiner's view on the issue.

As to point 1, the problem of coming
to judgements about the reliability and validity of what different people
state regarding spiritual contexts is far more complex than indicated by
the formulation by Hansson.

It is correct that Steiner not explicitly
and in detail described specific, generally applicable criteria for determining
which statements as such about spiritual contexts are reliable and valid
and which are not, equally developed as the ones developed to judge the
reliability and validity of research results acquired through external
experimentation to investigate properties of matter, space and time.

As with statements in natural science,
there however are a number of factors supporting the forming of a judgement
of the reliability of statements regarding spiritual issues.

Some are "internal", others are
"external". To the internal ones belong internal consistency, and
intersubjectivity in the same sense as in natural science.

To the external ones, applicable
when the spiritual scientific statements concern properties of matter,
time and space, belong experimental tests and considerations.

At http://www.thebee.se/SCIENCE/Science.htm
this author discusses the epistemological and ontological roots of "spiritual
science" in relation to "natural science", pointing to their complementary
character, necessitating partly different criteria for judging the reliability
and validity of statements in "natural science" and "spiritual science".

Point 2, formulated by Hansson,
has the same character as the question of who came first, the egg or the
hen. As such, it stands out as surprising to find in an article purporting
to be a serious philosophical article discussing the nature of anthroposophy
as spiritual science.

HANSSON:In anthroposophical practice, a further problem has ensued:
Since Steiner's death in 1925, no one else has reached anywhere near his
clairvoyant ability. As one example, in spite of dedicated efforts by thousands
of anthroposophists, no one after Steiner seems to have been able to read
the Akasha chronicle.

One might have expected anthroposophy, as practised today,
to be based mainly on clairvoyant visions by its contemporary practitioners
(i.e., visions certified by their agreement with the teachings of Steiner).
In practice, however, only a very small part of what anthroposophists believe
in has this basis. Instead, Steiner's books and (stenographically recorded)
lectures are the dominating source of anthroposophical doctrine.

It would be wrong, however, to denounce this practice
as contrary to Steiner's methodology. If one accepts one's own visions
only when they are in accord with the teachings of a "forerunner", then
nothing could be more natural than accepting these teachings even when
one has not had any corresponding visions. Indeed, this is exactly what
Steiner adviced those of us to do, "who cannot or do not desire to tread
the path into the supersensible world". [21]

There is an obvious parallel between this short cut to
anthroposophical knowledge and the normal way of learning science at schools
and universities. We do not learn mechanics by meticulously repeating the
experiments of Galilei or the observations of Tycho Brahe. We learn ancient
Egyptian history without trying to decipher hieroglyphs, etc. Instead,
we learn from "forerunners", whose results are summarized in textbooks.

But in spite of the similarity there are at least two
important differences. One of them concerns the attitude to critical
thinking. In the teaching of ordinary science, the official ideal is
to inspire the student to think critically. In anthroposophy, the ideal
is to help him suppress critical thinking. This applies not only to the
practice of clairvoyance, but also to the secondary acquisition of occult
knowledge:

"If such truths are communicated to you, then
they will by their own force arouse inspiration in the soul. However, if
you want to partake in such inspiration, you must try not to receive these
insights [Ertkenntnisse] in a sober-minded and intellectual way [nüchtern
und verstandesmässig], but to let the exaltation of the ideas bring
you to all emotional experiences that are at all possible." [22]

COMMENTHansson's description seriously
misrepresents Steiner's view. What Steiner argues for is that to come to
an experience of subtle soul- and spiritual phenomena related to nature,
other people, or the spiritual world as such, immediately critically analysing
them when they start to appear, would kill them off.

Developing observational capacities
before intellectually analysing the experiences in relation to the soul-
and spiritual world does not mean that intellectual analysis has no place
in anthroposophical research, only that it is necessary to postpone it
somewhat in relation to developing observational capacities, to give the
observations the possibility to mature and stabilize somewhat before analysing
them.

For one example of many possible
examples of an analysis of anthroposophy, an analysis of it from an epistemological
and ontological perspective in relation to a general concept of science,
and the way it has developed as natural science during especially the last
centuries, see the earlier mentioned paper "What is Science?".

For an example of how an analysis
of the understanding of the (double) nature of time, implicit in anthroposophy,
as also in Aristotle's analysis of the nature of causality, that casts
a possible light on such contemporary issues as the nature and development
of the European Union, 70 years after the death of Steiner, see here.

For an analysis of the nature of
the cell cycle of eucharyote cells (the subject of one
of the Nobel prizes in 2001), and one aspect of the meaning of one
of many - at first sight surprising - suggestions by Steiner; that cell
biology in Waldorf schools be taught from a "cosmological" perspective,
see here.

That such types of analysis not
is extensively common in anthroposophical contexts points to one degree
of reality basis for Hansson's criticism of anthroposophy, as it has developed
during the now almost 80 years after the death of Steiner.

It is however not supported by Hansson's
distorted, superficial and mainly rhetorical description of the way Steiner
describes the preconditions for and nature of spiritual research, but has,
in the view of this author, much more complex causes.

HANSSON:The other major difference concerns
access to knowledge.
In conventional science, teachers are supposed to encourage beginning students
to learn as much as they can, even about the most advanced parts of science.
It is not considered "dangerous" for the beginning physicist to try to
understand quantum chromodynamics or for the beginning linguist to study
some half-deciphered ancient pictographs.

In anthroposophy, however, there are strict limits to
what information should be accessible to non-initiates. The disciple's
physical senses hide from him "things which, if he were unprepared, would
throw him into utter disarray; the sight of them would be more than he
could endure. The pupil [Geheimschüler] must be able to endure this
sight." [23] It is "a natural law among
all Initiates" not to reveal any information to those of us who are not
prepared for it. [24]

"You my flatter him, you may torment him: nothing
can induce him to divulge anything which he knows should not be divulged
to you because at your present stage of development you do not understand
how to prepare in your soul a worthy reception for this mystery [Geheimnis]."
[25]

COMMENT:The whole of anthroposophy with
and after 1904 (the time from which quote 24 and 25 are taken) up to Steiner's
death in 1925 and afterwards up to the present contradicts this thesis
of Hansson (see foreword to the 5th edition of "Knowledge of Higher Worlds,
How is it attained?", published 10 years after the first edition, quoted
above). The quote, used by Hansson, is taken from a time when Steiner
still was mainly working within the theosophical tradition during his first
years as a public spiritual scientist.

Developing anthroposophy out of
and separate from theosophical context, he in a lecture 1916 specifically
expressed the view, contradicting Hansson's thesis, that it was necessary
to make public what formerly had been withheld to a greater public. That
has also taken place in anthroposophy, with next to nothing except the
personal phone bills of Steiner today having been published of his work
and as descriptions of his doings in all sorts of contexts.

"We are living in an age
when supersensible knowledge can no longer remain the secret possession
of a few. No, it must become the common property of all, in whom the meaning
of life within this age is stirring as a very condition of their soul's
existence. In the unconscious depths of the souls of men this need is already
working, far more widespread than many people dream. And it will grow,
more and more insistently, to the demand that the science of the Supersensible
shall be treated on a like footing with the science of Nature."

In harmony with the basic strife of
anthroposophy, to in full make it accessible to anyone interested in it,
except for publishing basically all not only written works, but also the
transcripts of basically all lectures (public as well as originally not
public membership lectures, except mainly duplications of lectures), a
large and increasing number of them are also available online on the internet,
at Elib.com

It indicates that what Hansson writes
mainly is pure rhetoric, coming from confusing anthroposophy with theosophy
at the beginning of the 20th century and incomplete study of the issues
he argues about.

HANSSON:

3. Testable predictions

According to Steiner, there is no contradiction between anthroposophy
and conventional science.

"The results of spiritual science do not in any
instance contradict the factual research of natural science. In all cases,
when you look impartially at the relation between the two, something
quite different will appear for our epoch. It turns out that this factual
research steers for the goal of being brought, in not too distant time,
into full harmony with what spiritual science must, from its supersensible
sources, establish for certain areas". [26]

In other words, conventional science is bound to gradually
rediscover the truths already discovered by spiritual science.

Steiner did not accept empirical science as a judge of
anthroposophy.

COMMENT:This is an oversimplified statement
and in that sense untrue. To the extent that anthroposophy predicts empirically
testable events, patterns of events or phenomena that are observable empirically,
they of course can be tested empirically.

Much of anthroposophy however concerns
soul- and spiritual phenomena, that cannot be tested empirically in any
other full sense than to develop the observational capacities necessary
to directly observe the phenomena described by Steiner. In this sense,
the same holds for anthroposophy as for other psychological or epistemological
disciplines. The phenomena concerned are not primarily of an external spatial-temporal
nature.

Hansson then discusses three cases
that he considers to be proofs that Steiner was wrong in a number of his
basic predictions on the future development of natural science.

The examples described by Hansson
concern 1. the nature of atoms2. the nature of special relativity,
and3. the use of Mercury in the treatment
of syphilis.

For comments on the three examples
argued about by Hansson, come back to this page in some time for an updated
version of it, including the comments.

Notes:

[1] In what follows,
Steiner will be quoted in English translation. Translations published by
the anthroposophical movement will be used when available. The German original
of some key words will be given in square brackets.

The following abbreviations will be used for the most
frequently quoted writings by Steiner: